Is there an easy proof of this? What happens if we allow cyclic situations such as 1234567890123?
-
-
-
The proof might just be exhaustive checking since there aren’t that many numbers. But if you allow cyclic, then that’s definitely a non-trivial proof.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What about other bases than 10?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Has 1234567891011 or 12345678910111213 or 123456789101112131415 or 1234567891011121314151617 or ... etc etc Been checked?
-
These aren't digits though
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
How could we know that?
-
Read what he wrote and think it through. It will come to you.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
And the second-largest number with consecutive increasing digits.
-
which makes the result unremarkable/trivial
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If I put 1*23456789 with a little dot... it will hold the complete sequence and still be
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.